MUHAMMAD NISAR Versus State
This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail filed by the accused, Muhammad Nisar, who was charged with offences under sections 10 and 18 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979, following an alleged attempt to commit Zina with the complainant's wife. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail in light of the evidence presented in the F.I.R. and the circumstances of the case. The Court held that the petitioner was not entitled to bail, as there was prima facie ample incriminatory material available against him. The Court observed that the complainant had no apparent motive to falsely implicate the petitioner at the cost of his wife's honour. Furthermore, the Court addressed the argument regarding the delay in lodging the F.I.R., clarifying that the delay was five days rather than the month and five days alleged by the petitioner, and that such a delay was not crucial given the sensitive nature of the offence. Consequently, the bail application was dismissed.
- Does a five-day delay in lodging an F.I.R. for an offence involving the honour of a woman necessarily entitle the accused to bail?
- Is an accused entitled to bail when there is prima facie incriminatory material available regarding an offence that falls under the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Can an accused claim false implication without providing evidence of malice or motive on the part of the complainant?
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 10, Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979
- Section 18, Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979
ORDER
M. BILAL KHAN, J.---- Muhammad Nisar son of Muhammad Sadiq the petitioner has moved the instant application under section 497, Cr.P.C., seeking post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.101 dated 8-5-2005, registered at Police Station Mitha Tiwana, District Khushab for offences under sections 10/18 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance No.VII of 1979.
2. The case of the complainant Talib Hussain son of Muhammad Sharif as it unfolded in the F.I.R. was that he was cultivator; on 3-5-2005 he was busy in his fields whereas his wife Mst. Kauser Bibi was in the house all by herself; about 1/2 p.m. he came to his house along with Muhammad Aslam son of Siraj Din to have meals; when he and Muhammad Aslam arrived at the outer door of the house they heard hue and cry emanating from inside the house; they saw that Muhammad Nisar son of Muhammad Sadiq the petitioner had made his wife stretch out in the kitchen cum verandah after breaking the string of her Shalwar and was trying to commit Zina with her; on seeing them he jumped over the four-foot high wall and escaped from the scene; the incident was witnessed by him and Muhammad Aslam; that after the incident the petitioner had been trying to effect compromise which did not materialize. Resultantly the instant F.I.R. had been recorded.
3. The petitioner applied for his post-arrest bail. However, his bail application had been turned down by the learned Additional Sessions Judge Khushab vide order dated 9-7-2005. Hence the instant application.
4. I have heard Syed Imdad Hussain Haindani, Advocate for the petitioner, Mr. Arshad Ali Saif Qureshi, Advocate for the State and have gone through the record brought by Ameer Afzal A.S.-I.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able, even prima facie to show any material in support of his assertion that Mst. Kausar Bibi the alleged victim is in the habit of levelling such-like false allegations. There is nothing on record to show that the complainant is motivated or that there was any malice being harboured by him to falsely implicate the petitioner. It is to be noted that it would be difficult A to imagine that the complainant would falsely implicate the petitioner without any good reason at the cost of tarnishing the chastity and modesty of his wife. The assertion of the learned counsel for the petitioner as contained in ground "b" that the F.I.R. was delayed by one month and five days is also not correct inasmuch as the incident is stated to have taken place on 3-5-2005, whereas the F.I.R. had been recorded on 8-5-2005. The delay of five days and not one month and five days in the given facts and circumstances of the case may not be very crucial, keeping in view the fact that the honour and dignity of the complainant's wife was at stake. I would not like to further comment on the merits of the case lest it prejudices either of the sides. Suffice it to say that there is prima facie ample incriminatory material available against the petitioner and the offence charged which attracts the prohibitory clause of section 497(1), Cr.P.C. Resultantly this petition is dismissed.
N.H.Q./M-1400/L ?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Bail refused.